Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the conviction of the appellants for murder could be sustained on the basis of the testimony of a solitary eyewitness whose presence and version were found doubtful, in the face of surrounding circumstances suggesting a mob assault and possible false implication.
Analysis: The evidence was tested against the surrounding circumstances, including prior animosity between the parties, the doubtful presence of the eyewitnesses at the scene, the failure to examine material accompanying witnesses, the unnatural conduct attributed to the witnesses, and the nature and number of injuries found on the deceased. The Court held that a conviction based on a solitary eyewitness is sustainable only when the testimony is wholly reliable and inspires confidence. Here, the witness's evidence was found unsafe to accept as gospel truth, particularly because the medical evidence and the pattern of injuries did not support the prosecution case that only the two appellants were the assailants. The Court also found that the High Court had erred in treating one witness as an eyewitness without adequate discussion.
Conclusion: The conviction could not be sustained on the evidence led, and the appellants were entitled to acquittal.